Case 3304357/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Mallick, counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304357/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms N Mallick, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on amendment, limitation, strike out and deposit, and no evidence was heard. At the outset the claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim, any constructive unfair dismissal claim, and any dismissal-related discrimination claim. The remaining case proceeded as race discrimination issues arising from IBM's handling of the claimant's grievance and appeal, with the relevant chronology being the grievance lodged on 22 July 2021, the grievance outcome on 7 December 2021, the appeal outcome on 1 April 2022, and the ET1 presented on 11 April 2022.
The tribunal held that the ET1 did not expressly plead discrimination or victimisation in the grievance process, but it did contain enough factual material about the investigation, the selection of witnesses and documents, and the grievance outcome to permit amendment. It allowed the claimant to amend so that the existing facts about the grievance and grievance appeal could proceed as claims of direct race discrimination and/or victimisation. The respondent was not wholly surprised by that issue, and the balance of hardship favoured allowing the amendment.
By contrast, all complaints about operational line management before the claimant's employment ended were held to be out of time. The tribunal found that the claimant's departure from IBM broke any continuity between the earlier management complaints and the later grievance sequence, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those pre-22 July 2021 complaints were struck out. The tribunal noted that the claimant had access to legal advice during the primary limitation period and chose to wait for the grievance appeal before presenting the ET1.
On the surviving grievance-related allegations, the tribunal refused strike out because it could not say the case had no reasonable prospect of success. It nevertheless found that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a single deposit of £250 for the whole case that proceeds. No liability finding and no compensatory award were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing. The withdrawal also covered any constructive unfair dismissal claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Withdrawn together with the unfair dismissal claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The withdrawal included any claim of discrimination in dismissal under Equality Act s.39(2)(c). | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaints about events before 22 July 2021, including operational line-management allegations. The tribunal held they were out of time, not part of a continuing act after the claimant left IBM, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. No separate decision was made on the alternative harassment pleading. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Amendment allowed for the conduct and outcome of the grievance and grievance appeal as direct race discrimination. The claim was not struck out, but the tribunal ordered a single £250 deposit for the case that proceeds. No merits determination was made. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Chaudhury v Cerberus, 2022 EAT 172
- s.23 like with like test
- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 39 deposit order
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.